the MA Supreme Court was supposed to issue its gay-marriage ruling at 10am today

[minxnim]

its pretty much the biggest there's ever been. figure it this way: in most states they wont even recognize a gay partner of 20+ years as a person who has the rights to help someone make medical decisions or to inherit property from them.

 

[xfer]

no shit. there are some really big hurdles still to overcome, though.

i actually don't think pushing gay marriage is going to be the easiest/best route to getting equal rights and benefits for gay couples. i'd prefer the government not to sanction marriages at ALL and leave that up to religions, and to give all couples--gay or straight--civil unions with all the legal benefits we currently associate with marriage. i think that conservatives' main problem with the concept is in the language, using "marriage" as a legal term when it's a religious term that, in the majority of this country's religion, DOES mean "man and woman". so they're kind of right. so let's sidestep the stupid language thing altogether!

'course, conservatives will generally point at me and scream HE WANTS TO DESTROY THE FAMILY AND ABOLISH MARRIAGE, but whatever.

 

[minxnim]

well, since law is half based on language, how can you avoid the language? you might as well avoid the law then. so sure, semantics sucks, but you can't have a definition in the law without a bunch of semantic games and potential loopholes.

what would be the best route to gay equality? who knows? there's no such thing so who could possibly predict? we've never seen another group without equality BECOME equal to model it after.

 

[avi]

yeah, most of the dissent of gay marriage that I've read that actually seems somewhat reasonable follows what alex said in that they (the dissenters) have a problem with using the term marriage for gays. the only problem with that proposal is that america is too damn religious for something like alex's proposal to get passed. now, as for allowing legal civil unions, I really truly believe that it's only a matter of time. once a couple liberal states pass it, the rest will have to follow. eventually, anyway.

 

[xfer]

i just think conservatives have no merit when they say gays don't deserve spousal benefits, visitation, inheritance, social acceptance, right to adopt/raise/have children, et cetera. they DO have some merit, technically, when they say "marriage is between a man and a woman". so, fuck 'em, circumvent their rhetoric, attack them where they're ACTUALLY totally wrong. the government shouldn't be sanctioning religious events, anyway.

 

[xfer]

and regardless the concept of having a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to affirm "marriage is between a man and a woman" is appalling.

 

[avi]

yeah, the constitutional amendment thing is just plain ridiculous. i can't believe some people are *that* scared about homosexual unions.

 

[Veils_of_Cerpintaxt]

With the current leaning toward Republican in Congress and the White House, I wouldn't be suprised if they try and hurry a gay ban before the next election.

It really saddens me that I live in such a conservative state too, there's a gay guy that works with me, and some of the stories he's told me of what people have done to him, are just cringe inducing.

 

[xfer]

i would be surprised if they tried to hurry a gay ban before the election, actually--i think that might knock key moderates away from Bush (and the hawkish liberals who appreciate his foreign war policy, but not his social policies). i don't think Bush needs to cement his support with far-right-wingers, which is what that would do, right? more likely he'll do it in his second term, in my opinion.

 

[Veils_of_Cerpintaxt]

You have a great point, and without a strong Democratic candidate yet, it sadly looks like Bush will be re-elected.

 

[FalseTodd]

I don't see this as a huge victory, tho. they didn't sanction gay marriages, they only said the ban was unconstitutional.

edit - it is a big decision, on second thought. but not as big as it coulda been.

From what I understand, at this point the legislature's hands are basically tied, and we either get marriage or civil unions in 6 months. Civil unions (I think) come along if they do nothing.

 

[xfer]

Romney can't veto or anything at this point, right?

 

[FalseTodd]

From Boston.com: "The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion," the court ruled in its 50-page decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn today's decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a state's constitution."

 

[FalseTodd]

It sounds to me like the legislature can pass a law allowing marriages if they want to, but it's irrelevant at this point. So, no Romney can't veto, because there's no law to veto!